Nice post Elk. Better get a works cited posted soon, or you’ll have a hard time 'round here!
This is ridiculous.
Reading some of the charges here, against Bush or Kerry, is like listening to a fat-ass congressman talking about how dangerous ephedra and steroids are.
Can any of you Bush haters backup your reasoning for hating him without the influence of the brainwashing, liberal media that you?ve succumbed to? Give me hard evidence! Stop relaying what the f?n media is portraying!
Put aside the media and forget about everything you?ve read, for everything you read is bullshit. That bullshit makes you conform.
The fact is, we have only one clear choice this year. I cannot vote for Kerry for multiple reasons that I don?t care to get into right now; therefore, I must support Bush.
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Amendment XIV
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
I’d just like to say to everyone who agrees with me, categorically, “Nice post.”
Greenspan has taken a long deep drink of the kool-aid.
Evidenced by his comments that essentially boil down to getting rid of social security and keep the tax breaks for millionaires.
I see…
and how about the top medicare expert Richard Foster being threatened if he revealed the true cost of Medicare to Congress before the vote? Lovely work by the White House there.
And the hits just keep on coming.
“Evidenced by his comments that essentially boil down to getting rid of social security and keep the tax breaks for millionaires.”
Hmmm, so taking out the requisite degree of your distortion (i.e. “getting rid of,” “for millionaires”), anyone who advocates either of these policies in any circumstances is automatically “crazy” in your opinion, Kuri?
Or do you then allege that Greenspan has been jawboned by the White House:
“and how about the top medicare expert Richard Foster being threatened”
I’ll look that up.
“We’ll know what we know when we know it.” --Rumsfeld on the search for WMDs.
Right Side Up, you’re right, that quote by Rumsfeld shows that he is positively evil.
Since this post is about John Kerry (remember him?), I found out his Cuba policy.
Mickey Kaus quotes today’s Miami Herald:
‘‘I’m pretty tough on Castro, because I think he’s running one of the last vestiges of a Stalinist secret police government in the world,’’ Kerry told WPLG-ABC 10 reporter Michael Putney in an interview to be aired at 11:30 this morning.
Then, reaching back eight years to one of the more significant efforts to toughen sanctions on the communist island, Kerry volunteered: ``And I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him.‘’
It seemed the correct answer in a year in which Democratic strategists think they can make a play for at least a portion of the important Cuban-American vote – as they did in 1996 when more than three in 10 backed President Clinton’s reelection after he signed the sanctions measure written by Sen. Jesse Helms and Rep. Dan Burton.
There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it. …
But there are also constant reminders that Kerry struggles with the complexities of Cuba. Asked in the Herald interview last year about sending Eli?n back to Cuba, Kerry was blunt: ``I didn’t agree with that.‘’
But when he was asked to elaborate, Kerry acknowledged that he agreed the boy should have been with his father.
So what didn’t he agree with?
‘‘I didn’t like the way they did it. I thought the process was butchered,’’ he said.<<<<<
Jeez, “the process was butchered.” That’s like the leitmotiv when Kerry walks away from his voting record. It’s as though the only process he’s content with is the one that gets him next office.
Shame on Iowa and NH for giving us this guy instead of John Edwards.
anyone… ANYONE but bush
Did I say that BS? I just thought it was a funny little way to look at the situation.
We don’t even take our training that lightly!
Rummy did look a bit more evil in the video clip of him shaking hands with Saddam in the 80’s.
I’ve seen a similar clip with Schroeder. And I’ve seen the footage of Roosevelt smiling with Stalin at Yalta.
And of course you know about just how far up the UN food-chain the oil-for-food scandal has now gone. The UN’s point man on the program was filling bank accounts with money from Saddam. The corruption of Saddam’s regime touched the entire world community. President Clinton and the Senate decided that the only way to deal with the situation was regime change. President Bush made good on that declaration.
AMEN, Mr. Smith!
Perhaps so, but what was the impetus for the Iraqi invasion in the middle of the War on Terrorism and the manhunt for bin Laden? Why then?
Right Side Up writes:
“Perhaps so, but what was the impetus for the Iraqi invasion in the middle of the War on Terrorism and the manhunt for bin Laden? Why then?”
Why not then?
As soon as possible, why not depose a leader who was lionized by terrorists for his unpunished defiance of the United States? Iraq was the only country who could fire on our forces regularly without retribution (as our planes protected the Kurdish and Shiite resistance from mass slaughter).
Stepping up the resources to find Bin Laden during THAT time would have been a waste. He was too underground. However, the focus on re-designing Afghanistan was short-shrifted during the countdown to Iraq, this I believe.
Personally, I would rather Bush had GRADUALLY and more diplomatically pushed the call for regime change in Iraq before loudmouthing about it. He should have started by discussing how the sanctions were helping Saddam and hurting the Iraqi people; even exposing the illicit dealings that were going on under the oil-for-food program. And he should have rested the case on the importance of armistice agreements and material breach.
Brian Smith writes:
“Why not then?
As soon as possible, why not depose a leader who was lionized by terrorists for his unpunished defiance of the United States? Iraq was the only country who could fire on our forces regularly without retribution (as our planes protected the Kurdish and Shiite resistance from mass slaughter).
Stepping up the resources to find Bin Laden during THAT time would have been a waste. He was too underground. However, the focus on re-designing Afghanistan was short-shrifted during the countdown to Iraq, this I believe.”
Whose ideas are these? Which military/political strategist has declared that this was the thinking behind the timing?
Why hadn’t Bush begun this regime change from the beginning of his administration? Would it have appeared to shady, what with the suspected Halliburton links?
How long could he have waited? No one could have predicted we would roll into Bagdad so fast. This is an election year, so he couldn’t have waited much longer.
Right Side Up,
Halliburton is one of only 5 companies that could be capable of doing the large-scale jobs in Iraq. The U.S. government has used Halliburton for a long time, as during Clinton’s terms as commander in chief
I would say that since Bush discussed the “axis of evil” early on, he telegraphed his desire to move for regime change in Iraq, since that was our national policy. Then, 9-11 happened and in a post-9-11 world, Bush decided that the desireability of stopping a problem ahead of time was more communicable.
Why are Democrats so suspicious that we have about 10-12 reasons to have invaded Iraq? If the WMD’s haven’t been found in the 12 months we have been there, does that invalidate the other nine to eleven arguments the administration used as justification? Does it change the fact that Saddam supported terrorists? Does it change the fact that he was shooting at our coalition’s planes every day? Does it change the awful crimes against his people? Does it change the decade of noncompliance with the U.N. mandates? Does it change the fact that brutual dictators, once they get their wings clipped (Kuwait-1991) always look for a reason to revenge themselves (see assassination attempt on George Senior)? Does it change the fact that he destabilized the region by invading a neighbor once every decade? Does it change the fact that he was bribing world leaders? Does it change the fact that we know he had the capability to produce these weapons? Does it change the fact that Saddam launched unprovoked Scud attacks against our ally, Israel and killed their civilians? Does it change the fact that he used his oil and a subsequent embargo to try to strongarm the Israeli-Palestinian debate to suit his ends?
Please answer.